what s everyone (or anyone) reading now?

Comment by sol — May 8, 2008 @ 4:20 am

hi Sol, there’s so much being published here, on the WAP site, ‘Psychoanalytic Notebooks’ and elsewhere that it’s difficult to keep up. Have reread part of Gerard Wajcman’s ‘Intime’, which I like very much.
Maybe I’ve just noticed, but there seems a small text explosion in the Lacanian world.

Comment by Chris Sands — May 8, 2008 @ 12:59 pm

what s everyone (or anyone) reading now? asks Sol, If the topic for the next Encounter is “Semblant et Sinthome” my readings plans will start from there - you know how the Sinthome is what will never be semblance — like the signifier is semblance, like the name of the father in that it is a signifier is semblance.

Comment by violet — May 10, 2008 @ 11:46 pm

how do we define semblance? make believe, perhaps?

Comment by alice — May 13, 2008 @ 2:16 am

I am reading “Subjectivity and Otherness”, but I wonder if Lacan himself read it, would he approve of it?!

Comment by Majid — May 14, 2008 @ 11:48 am

Lorenzo Chiesa suggests sinthomes don’t talk to each other (which isn’t answering your question Majid)

Comment by Chris Sands — May 14, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

Where does Chiessa say of sinthomes not talking to each other, in “Subjectivity and Otherness?

Comment by alice — May 15, 2008 @ 7:16 pm

Chiessa is not a member of the WAP (World Association of Psicoanalisis), however the editor of the series that comprises his “Subjectivity and Otherness is Slavoj Zizek

Comment by alice — May 16, 2008 @ 2:46 pm

Alice, I interpret something at the end of Lorenzo Chiesa’s text (5.5) - and the subheading following the book’s title is ‘a philosophical reading of Lacan’. The ending and reference to the sinthome doesn’t quite work, I think, and perhaps ideas surrounding the sinthome are very much linked to practice. Alain Badiou also seems to avoid later Lacan.

Comment by Chris Sands — May 16, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

Is talking about ’semblants’ and sinthome the toughest assignment yet?

Comment by Chris Sands — May 16, 2008 @ 5:22 pm

There is a Miller book “Of the Nature of Semblants,” which provides great help with this topic

Comment by alice — May 17, 2008 @ 2:20 am

- but not yet translated I fear

Comment by Chris Sands — May 17, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

In Symptom 2 - and in JA Miller’s ‘Ironic Clinic’ there are many references to ’semblants’ and here perhaps there’s some connection to the text mentioned in ‘213′ I could paste a few quotes from an exceptional text but will paste just one.
‘If the a depends on the signifying articulation, the only formal ontology is that of the object a. Why “ontology”? It is because the object a in its analytic pinpointing appears very much like a being. It is there, especially, that it is of capital importance not to confuse it with the real. The object a, as such, is a semblant of being. And the only term of consistency says very well its affinities with the imaginary.’

Comment by Chris Sands — May 17, 2008 @ 7:19 pm

can we put images/avatars in these little portrait boxes to the right of our messages?
anyone know how?
I just saw a great exhibition of Ian Friend’s works on paper, in Brisbane.
He had some microscopic photographs of tiny sections of his drawings, which resembled the overall
larger drawings.
It was quite amazing - his metaphysics series.
Perhaps why I am thinking to put a tiny image in these boxes here..
rdtoClunes.JPG

Comment by Sol — May 20, 2008 @ 9:21 pm

yes we can, but I don’t know the program enough as for everybody to be able to do it. I need an expert heart to help with this and there doesn’t seem to be many. I could put the heart signing as “admin” still I couldn’t put it in the little square

Comment by admin — May 23, 2008 @ 12:48 am

With a wordpress site you’d generally attach a profile, but with a group a profile would have to be linked to a username somehow.

Comment by Chris Sands — May 23, 2008 @ 3:53 pm

Admin

That heart is so symbolic. You are on the ‘pulse’.: Beethoven: ‘ From the heart to the heart’ on the 9th symphony

Comment by Terry1 — May 24, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

Just seen the streaming video of Josefina and Slavov Zizek. Thanks for these Josefina. Excellent resources.

Comment by Terry1 — May 24, 2008 @ 4:31 pm

plain

Comment by admin — May 25, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

:-P :-P

Comment by admin — May 25, 2008 @ 8:12 pm

Comment by admin — May 25, 2008 @ 8:45 pm

The message-board is fixed and functioning as normally.

Comment by admin — June 10, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

Felix the Cat,he is worried…

Comment by alice — June 10, 2008 @ 10:36 pm

and if he’s anxious, could we begin with anxiety?
Anxiety is seen I think as an important indication that something’s going on (in therapy), but sometimes anxiety will seem close to being unbearable…
And at times the simple premises that maintain the work seem to brush up against the real

Comment by Chris Sands — June 11, 2008 @ 2:37 am

funny enough in English we translate Anxiety what in French is Angoisse, in Spanish Angustia
still in French we have Angst, in Spanish Angustia, and in English Anguish

Comment by alice — June 11, 2008 @ 8:23 pm

I have a sudden dread that I (a stranger) will disappear (again)
-Felix
The stranger who appears all of a sudden (the middle of seminar X)
-that is what I think of - and the (semblance) of wolves in a walnut (?) tree
I think a giant cockeral will bite me at the place of the palace
- Felix
and little Hans - how anxiety hysteria shifts

Comment by sol — June 12, 2008 @ 1:00 am

Felix, life is indeed fragil in here, no guarantees
admin is to blame
the giant cockeral that lives next door won’t see you if you do not open the door

Comment by alice — June 13, 2008 @ 12:50 am

to the right Felix says I want to open the door
to the left Felix says I should not open the door
whether there is an admin or not
this is where Felix is stuck

Comment by sol — June 13, 2008 @ 8:38 am

CS - Anxiety is seen as an important indication… in the sense that there is an object, anxiety is never without an object.

Comment by alice — June 13, 2008 @ 11:56 pm

Well, went to an anxiety producing (arts) conference yesterday and having just seen mention of Ian Parker’s new book looking at regulation of psychoanalysis, it seems the evaluation picture (see forum) is so general. The picture is of government linked to a discourse of the university caught up in attempts to validate that discourse, management and even science as one of the names of the father. What was clear, even in an ‘off the beaten track setting’, is the increasing distance between management and individuals looking at projects that can be funded etc. Evidence of this new fascination with ‘legitimacy’ seems so much at odds with the work of art and therapy and like Felix and the big cockerel, big science and management are causing anxiety.

Comment by Chris Sands — June 15, 2008 @ 3:50 am

Chris Sands - I’ve been looking for the evaluation picture you talk about…. which, where??? In any case I do not see pictures in page 4 of Evaluation

Comment by violet — June 17, 2008 @ 1:10 am

Sorry Violet, use of language, meant only ‘picture’ as in English phrase ‘the broad picture here is of…’.
So, use of language to make possibly contentious point.

Comment by Chris Sands — June 17, 2008 @ 1:50 am

- or showing off, like the cockerel sometimes…
I’ve just said something next door too (a+L symposium).
I said Anish kapoor talks of something quick with looking, but afterwards thinking about something Sol says, in the case of his work there’s also taking time.
With art, it seems the object moves.

Comment by Chris Sands — June 19, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

:-P :-P

Comment by violet — June 21, 2008 @ 8:01 pm

rff!

Comment by sol — June 23, 2008 @ 4:40 am

These images are very unsettling. Moving images are supposed to improve health?

Comment by terry1 — June 23, 2008 @ 5:44 am

they asked me to take away the images away……. so I did it

Comment by admin — June 23, 2008 @ 11:53 am

Admin, Who is ‘they’?
The question might be - why does Terry1 find the images unsettling?
Really this is just further attempt to post image bp1.blogger.com/alice4.jpg

Comment by Chris Sands — June 23, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

Thanks Admin. For me the only soothing imago was the beating heart. Perhaps we should ask is repetition really the limit of freedom?. Perhaps Felix is demonstrating a ‘truth’ If we cannot see the images are they still moving or is is a trick of visual perception and the constancy of the visual field ……….I know car journeys do improve the health of sick people. The experience of ‘moving’ has a medicinal effect.

Comment by Terry1 — June 23, 2008 @ 4:50 pm

Terry 1 - in a sense aren’t you turning away from the direction of contemporary art.
Didn’t cinema change so much 100 years ago?
And now, with the internet, Felix has in mind reinventing it all over again…

Comment by Chris Sands — June 23, 2008 @ 6:20 pm

sacrifice_of_isaac.jpg

Comment by alice — June 24, 2008 @ 2:02 am

I was trying to put up a smaller image but it’s difficult because it has to be in the internet - in any case it didn’t work with the smaller images… It is Caravaggio’s Sacrifice of Isaac which is in Lacan’s Seminar Names of the Father…

Comment by alice — June 24, 2008 @ 2:16 am

WOW…. we can discuss the Names of the Father… the angel standing for the one whose Name you do not pronounce…and so

Comment by violet — June 24, 2008 @ 2:49 am

Nice picture Alice. Carravagio died in a sword fight. Some people think his ‘Supper at Emmaus’ was the first time a shadow was used in art.

Comment by terry1 — June 24, 2008 @ 4:07 am

(on Kierkegaard’s choice of the title ‘Fear and trembling, and repetition’)..
[one can understand why he chose the words of Paul to meditate on...]
“the still Jewish experience of a secret, hidden, seperate, absent, or mysterious God,
the one who decides, without revealing his reasons, to demand of Abraham that most cruel, impossible, and untenable
gesture: to offer his son Issac as a sacrifice.
All that goes on in secret……
This pseudonym [with which Kierkegaard signs his work] keeps silent, it expresses the silence
that is kept. Like all pseudonyms, it seems destined to keep secret the real name as patronym, that is, the name of the father of the work, in fact the name of the father of the father of the work….”
Derrida: from ‘Whom to give to (knowing not to know)’

Comment by sol — June 24, 2008 @ 8:59 am

I’m glad Felix remains.
When I minimize my screen into the dock
I have wondered whether Felix continues pacing inside
the 2 mm icon.
I thought he did.

Comment by sol — June 24, 2008 @ 9:03 am

Felix continues pacing inside the 2 mm icon - his head heavy with thoughts, the plain keeps an eye on him……

Comment by violet — June 24, 2008 @ 8:30 pm

yes good.
The story of Abraham and Issac was part of my question about aphasia
awhile ago. I had just read it, and noticed
that Issac spoke only once: Father where is the sheep?
By memory his father does not answer him
Afterwards, on return, he said nothing.
In this painting - how the ram and Issac’s heads are close
and the ram looking at Abraham with that sad eye
Is that NOF seminar in english translation?

Comment by sol — June 25, 2008 @ 10:43 am

Sol, there’s one that never took place, but I think there’s a fragment in ‘Television’

Comment by Chris Sands — June 25, 2008 @ 12:23 pm

There is in fact a fragment in Television “Introduction to the Names-of-the-Father”

Comment by violet — June 25, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

oh I have that and don’t remember it,
I might read it tonight..thanks

Comment by sol — June 25, 2008 @ 11:10 pm

In Lacan’s famous short Seminar The Names-of-the-Father, Abraham embodies the Father Figure reproduced in Caravaggio’s painting “The Sacrifice of Isaac: His son’s head tight against an altar made of stone, the boy suffers, makes gestures of pain. Abraham’s knife pointing towards the boy’s neck, an angel stops Abraham’s arm…. the angel stands for the one whose Name you do not pronounce.

Comment by violet — June 27, 2008 @ 4:24 am

standing for the father of the father...

Comment by sol — June 27, 2008 @ 8:23 am

img src=’http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=NG172&collectionPublisherSection=work’

Comment by terry1 — June 27, 2008 @ 5:22 pm

the father of the father, sol, should be the father of Totem and Tabou, right? - of the primitive hordes, the “jouisseur” father that appropriates all the women, and the sons revolt against and kill…

Comment by violet — June 28, 2008 @ 2:02 am

I would understand it violet that the father is the father of totem and taboo,
the father of the father would be the one who would introduce a limit
and a law to the desire of the (perverse) father- bridging desire and law.

Comment by sol — June 28, 2008 @ 3:11 am

Sol, Violet, the father of Totem and Taboo is only a good father by being a dead one and the ‘jouisseur father’ seems registers away from the Oedipal father (who sets limits), but your reference (Sol) was to the angel or to the one whose name you don’t pronounce. Here the missing seminar coincides with a biblical reference. And for a moment, Lacan’s work seems to pass too close to the place of trauma and reference to an unspeakable name seems also reference to a missing seminar. If measures and outcomes preoccupy the therapies one way or the other, don’t we return to trauma and a widespread perception that therapists and people in therapy sometimes work too close to the place of trauma. Theories of ‘governance’ and CBT. are then put in place to limit the ‘jouisseur’ therapist.

Comment by Chris Sands — June 28, 2008 @ 5:06 am

Let’s see if I can get it right…..
1)–the father of the primitive horde - the jouisseur father that appropriates all the women- is the REAL father. The sons kill him, this means he can only come back in the symbolic 2)– the sublimated dead father much as as he is the Law becomes the figure of a unique God (he returns to the place of the Other ,as Lacan says — the angel speaks in his name) 3–the third instance should be the Imaginary Father - Abraham

Comment by violet — June 29, 2008 @ 8:47 pm

:-) :-(

Comment by alice — June 30, 2008 @ 1:25 am

Hi All.
Nice forum.happy to be here and hope to be more involved.
thanks,
Mickael

Comment by Sputtygub — June 30, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

CS - we know how the analytical discourse has the exact same structure as the discourse of perversion, however we have to distinguish the analyst as objet a from the pervert as objet a… the analyst’s role certainly bound to “semblance”… Says Lacan:
“A madman who believes he is king is no more mad than a king who believes he is king.”
Of course, this statement means a king who believes he possesses an inherent “king gene” is implicitly mad.

Comment by violet — June 30, 2008 @ 8:46 pm

violet I don’t know how the discourse of analysis has the same structure as the discourse of perversion...

Comment by sol — July 1, 2008 @ 3:36 am

Sol - analysis and perversion have the same structure because they share the discourse: a—$ —S1—S2. And this is how the analyst as objet a is “semblance” … Not the pervert, who makes himself be objet a… let’s say the voyeur, he needs to make the Other exist to be an instrument of his jouissance.
To say it with Chris Sands ” Theories of ‘governance’ and CBT. are then put in place to limit the ‘jouisseur’ therapist.”

Comment by violet — July 1, 2008 @ 6:10 pm

violet - “…he needs to make the Other exist to be an instrument of his jouissance…” can you clarify this concept, provided the Other is a place, which of the two people is to embody this Other?

Comment by rupert — July 3, 2008 @ 3:10 am

rupert - the voyeur of course… the voyeur makes himself be objet a — and this is how he gets to be the Other jouisseur we were talking about

Comment by violet — July 3, 2008 @ 3:17 am

Does anyone here know of a book or website where I might be able to see Lacan’s handwriting? I picked up a PUF (I think) publication on “L’Inconscient” dated 1967, and Lacan’s name is written on the overleaf page. I picked it up for a dollar, at a bookstore in Oakland, so I don’t suppose it really did once belong to Lacan, but I’d like to compare the handwriting in the book with an example.
Thanks,
Brandon

Comment by Brandon B. — July 7, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

Better than nothing………?

Comment by violet — July 8, 2008 @ 2:16 am

oh interesting point
I always like to see someone who is important to me
their handwriting
and sometimes i wonder
is this imaginary
-that I think i surmise, or intuit, something of their history and character
in their handwriting.
I also wonder about the first time I visit someone’s house, how I like to see
the contents of their bookshelf (and their kitchen).
I don’t mind about their aesthetic, their tidiness, or much else
(maybe the artwork, or pictures).
I wonder though, about this curiosity, and the importance I place on it.

Comment by sol — July 8, 2008 @ 9:44 am

But were we talking about the name of the father?

Comment by sol — July 8, 2008 @ 9:46 am

say if Abraham came into the clinic and said he had been told by Yahweh
to sacrifice his son as a sheep (which Lacan says was common..?)
but not to tell the woman, who was menopausal, the mother,
to say nothing of it, would you not think that this was the jouisseur father,
the father of totem and taboo.
The son must figure, for me.
And that, at the point of the act, the angel, like Ganeesh, standing for something that cannot
be named (unlike us, but like us), arrives, arises, to lay the hand that places the limit.
or the analyst makes this limit, un-angel-like but still.
Then that is why it is the father of the father in this case, who is the name of the father,
and we are all sons, but made within a limit, actualising a limit. I think.

Comment by sol — July 8, 2008 @ 9:57 am

Definitely better than nothing. Thanks, violet.

Comment by brandon — July 8, 2008 @ 1:37 pm



here’s another one Brandon, Sol, where you can see the writing a bit better

Comment by violet — July 8, 2008 @ 5:59 pm

about the writing of someone who is important to you, I don’t think it is only imaginary that you surmise, or intuit, something of their history and character in their handwriting…. you probably capture a lot. What always surprises me though is the actual presence of fashion, of style, and the idea that what you capture is tied to writing, gestures, clothing, which are so very different… but then I think of the fluctuations of revival, and how you can make use of old clothing without it being peJorative, but rather very smart

Comment by violet — July 9, 2008 @ 1:27 am

Sol - Lacan says in those days people didn’t make a big deal about feelings - they had to sacrifice their son, god wanted it, OK I think Abraham stands for the Imaginary father - made up by the son - a big Other in the look of Frankestein’s monster - Frankenstein is the son If the Totem and Taboo Father is the real father the son’s killed… once dead he can only come back in the symbolic. With Lacan angels are often words, so this could be the case even if they are not pronounceable words _ they get to stop the killing

Comment by violet — July 9, 2008 @ 1:44 am

“With Lacan angels are often words, so this could be the case even if they are not pronounceable words _ they get to stop the killing”
I want this as a refrain..a recurring phrase, a burden, a chorus

Comment by Sol — July 11, 2008 @ 6:24 am

Hi there! Sorry for the long absence! Abraham is a perplexed Father, confusing the symbolic with the real at times. He receives the message of the big other (of law) to casterate his son so that he(Ishmail) may assume a symbolic identity. but as Abraham mistakenly takes the message as real, he is prevented and reminded of the symbolicity of the act of castration.

Comment by Majid — July 11, 2008 @ 11:17 am



In This Corner, in the Flouncy Skirt and Bowler Hat…

Comment by In-put — July 11, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

was the Bowler hat censored
or did I just imagine it?

Great photo.
Welcome back Majid!

Comment by Sol — July 12, 2008 @ 11:21 am

thank you , Sol…… I am vain enough to actually flatter myself after your nice compliments over my writing

Comment by violet — July 12, 2008 @ 4:27 pm

hello Mahid………nice idea as for the Father being perplexed - again confused -whilst prevented and reminded of the symbolicity of the act of castration.

Comment by violet — July 13, 2008 @ 3:35 am

so it isn’t that the lady lost the Bowler Hat because of the jump, and so it run off her head, out of the photograph?

Comment by violet — July 13, 2008 @ 4:49 pm

yes, or maybe behind her, she catapulted away from it,
and so still out of the photograph.
But her skirt stays down.
And the other woman who looks to catch her but is so far away...
no guarantees!
The flying woman looks so determined.
I like this photograph.

Comment by Sol — July 15, 2008 @ 9:24 am

The Cholitas Bolivian wrestling: Yes women in traditional clothing do wrestle.
Maybe the bowler hat holds now personal belongings, so has to sit aside while she is fighting, she keeps her stuff in the bowler hat while she is during this action, after the fight she can put her belongings back down the infinite pleated skirt.
“Adopting stage names and personas these women jump into the ring every Sunday in their traditional dress, vibrant multi-layered skirts…
They attract thousands of spectators in El Alto,Bolivia”…
Looking for the bowler hat, I found magritte’s “the son of man, the image is a man with and apple where the face is, and wears a bowler hat.
and this, now we have two hats, and something else

Comment by In-put — July 15, 2008 @ 12:27 pm

Marcel Duchamp as Rrose Sélavy by Man Ray 1920/21



Is this kind of hat known as a Bowler?

Comment by sol — July 19, 2008 @ 11:48 am

Sol, did I interpret your words and image? it took a while to get it to appear

Comment by admin — July 19, 2008 @ 1:58 pm

thanks for appearing it,
and violet the free and partial adaptation..
is certainly..”something else”!

Comment by sol — July 19, 2008 @ 11:34 pm

Sol, the truth is I tried to upload an image of La Femme 100 têtes adn didn’t succeed, so let me try again

Comment by violet — July 20, 2008 @ 3:30 am

But it was a good follow-on from In-Put’s comment violet
I think you should leave it there.
Does anyone have any recommendations for
books or papers around working with children,
especially under 5’s/under school aged children?
I have read (and recommend) Mathelin’s The Broken
Piano; The Courtel papers, and some of Maud Mannoni.
I’d appreciate any other suggestions.
thanks

Comment by sol — July 20, 2008 @ 8:21 am



La Femme 100 têtes — La même, pour la deuxiéme — Collage by Mark Ernst

Comment by violet — July 20, 2008 @ 1:26 pm

It’s said that he originated the Collage and that he said that he uses no glue...
it is maybe that Ernst is the father of this message board which is more like a collage ...than an emu..(though an emu is very like a collage)
Perhaps now I need an image of an emu...

Comment by sol — July 21, 2008 @ 11:01 am

During the Paris English seminar, one speaker quoted Fred Jameson to the effect that contemporary art amounts to a ‘pastiche’. I wanted to say, let’s say ‘montage’ rather than ‘pastiche’, which may sound pejorative. In fact this happened during Russell Grigg’s presentation, which might account for emus. Max Ernst may not have used glue but was a bit tacky.

Comment by Chris Sands — July 21, 2008 @ 3:21 pm

Does anyone know if there are firm dates for the issue-launching talks in November?

Comment by yammerskooner — July 21, 2008 @ 3:53 pm

yammerskooner - for Alain Badiou we have November 6 at Miguel Abreu Gallery, and November 7 at Jack Tilton Gallery, I am waiting for the conference titles to put it up in the calendar

Comment by admin — July 21, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

For the launching of lacanian ink 32: Alain Badiou — New York, Autumn 2008 - “Is the Word Communism Doomed?” at The Miguel Abreu Gallery, 36 Orchard St., November 6 at 7 p.m.
“Poetry, Philosophy And Politics” at The Tilton Gallery, 8 E. 76 St., November 7 at 7 p.m.
Josefina Ayerza will introduce the events

Comment by admin — July 25, 2008 @ 6:40 pm

message one oh oh
(it’s traditional)

Comment by sol — July 30, 2008 @ 7:02 am

I’ve seen you do this before, Sol…cheers!

Comment by violet — July 31, 2008 @ 10:58 pm

cheers to you violet

Comment by sol — August 1, 2008 @ 7:33 am

not that easy to break symmetries, Alice … there goes he, like a shadow

Comment by rupert — August 2, 2008 @ 11:36 pm

in an instance of nachtraglichkeit - the two boards - symposium and messageboard have shown a change of function recently - art has been effected here and other discussion in the symposium
that is my impression

Comment by sol — August 3, 2008 @ 7:26 am